This Status Report covers the ADA activities
of the Department of Justice during the second quarter (April-June)
of 2001. This report, previous status reports, and a wide range
of other ADA information are available through the Departments
ADA Home Page on the World Wide Web (see
page 11). The symbol (**) indicates that the document is
available on the .

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
is a comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities.
The Department of Justice enforces the ADAs requirements
in three areas --

Title I: Employment practices by units
of State and local government

Title II: Programs, services, and activities
of State and local government

Title III: Public accommodations and commercial
facilities

I. Enforcement

Through
lawsuits and both formal and informal settlement agreements,
the Department has achieved greater access for individuals with
disabilities in hundreds of cases. Under general rules governing
lawsuits brought by the Federal Government, the Department of
Justice may not file a lawsuit unless it has first unsuccessfully
attempted to settle the dispute through negotiations.

A.
Litigation

The Department
may file lawsuits in Federal court to enforce the ADA and may
obtain court orders including compensatory damages and back pay
to remedy discrimination. Under title III the Department may
also obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000 for the first violation
and $110,000 for any subsequent violation.

1.
Decisions

Supreme Court Rules for Casey Martin --The
Supreme Court, as urged in an amicus brief filed by the Department
of Justice, ruled 7-2 that the ADA prohibits the Professional
Golfers' Association (PGA) Tour from denying Casey Martin the
use of a golf cart during its tournaments. Martin, a professional
golfer from Eugene, Oregon, has a degenerative circulatory condition
in his right leg that makes it difficult, painful, and extremely
tiring to walk. He alleged that the PGA violated title III of
the ADA by failing to make reasonable accommodations in its walking
requirement that would allow him to use a cart. The District
Court had found that the purpose of the "walking rule"
was to inject fatigue into the skill of shot-making, but that
it would not fundamentally alter the nature of PGA's game to
accommodate Martin, because he endures greater fatigue from coping
with his condition, even when using a cart, than his competitors
experience from walking the course. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision, agreeing with an
amicus brief filed by the Department in support of Martin. The
Supreme Court held that the ADA's public accommodations requirements
apply to the PGA's tournaments and rejected the PGA's claim that
athletic competitors in its tournaments were not protected by
the ADA. It held that walking was not an essential attribute
of the game and found that in the circumstances of this case
the walking requirement could be waived without fundamentally
altering the nature of the tournaments or imposing undue administrative
burdens.

Federal Judge Allows Chicago Transit Suit to Continue
-- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
ruled that plaintiffs presented enough evidence to go to trial
on allegations that the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) was failing
to provide equal access to its mass transit system for people
with disabilities. In Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago
v. Chicago Transit Authority, the plaintiffs alleged a wide
range of failures by the transit authority including the failure
to provide and maintain operable lifts on buses, to stop for
riders with disabilities or deploy lifts when requested, to keep
train station elevators in operating condition, to provide "gap-fillers"
between train platform and rail cars, and to allow sufficient
time for passengers with disabilities to get on and off trains
and buses. The Department filed an amicus brief arguing that
the individual plaintiffs and Access Living as an organization
had standing to bring the suit and that the plaintiffs did not
have to show intentional discrimination to establish a violation
of the statute.

2. New lawsuits

The Department initiated or intervened
in the following lawsuits.

Title I

Department Defends EEOC Enforcement Authority in Supreme
Court -- The Department filed a brief in the Supreme
Court in EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., on behalf of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, arguing that the EEOC
can seek back pay, damages, and reinstatement for an individual
who was allegedly subjected to employment discrimination under
title I of the ADA at a Waffle House restaurant in West Columbia,
South Carolina, even though the individual signed an arbitration
agreement. The agreement required the charging party, who was
fired allegedly because of his seizure disorder, to submit any
employment-related disputes to binding arbitration. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the
arbitration agreement the EEOC could bring a lawsuit for general
relief, such as an order requiring the defendant not to engage
in discriminatory practices, but that it could not obtain victim-specific
relief, such as damages, back pay, and reinstatement. The Department's
brief in the Supreme Court argues that EEOC's authority to sue
to enforce title I in the public interest is independent of any
authority the individual has, and that the EEOC may seek all
remedies authorized by the statute including victim-specific
relief.

Title II

Efforts to Defend the Constitutionality of Title II
Damages Claims Against States Continue After Garrett --
The Department intervened in a number of lawsuits to defend the
constitutionality of title II suits against States for monetary
damages. In March, the Supreme Court decided in University
of Alabama v. Garrett that suits for damages under title
I could not override a States sovereign immunity because title
I was not "appropriate legislation" to enforce equal
protection rights under the Constitution. The Department's briefs
emphasized that the Supreme Court specifically limited its ruling
in Garrett to suits under title I and that the evidence
of unconstitutional discrimination by States assembled by Congress
to justify title II was far more extensive. Congress specifically
made findings in the text of the ADA that State-sponsored discrimination
persisted in areas such as education, voting, institutionalization,
and public services. Because of this evidence, the Department
argued that it was appropriate for Congress to enact title II
to root out present instances of unconstitutional discrimination,
to undo the effects of past discrimination, and to prevent future
unconstitutional treatment by prohibiting discrimination and
promoting integration where reasonable. The Department intervened
in --

Garcia v. SUNY Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn (2d
Cir.)

McAleese v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
(3d Cir.)

Root v. Georgia State Board of Veterinary Medicine
(11th Cir.)

Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (6th
Cir./Ohio)

Vinson v. Thomas (9th Cir./Hawaii)

and has filed supplemental briefs on this issue in --

Thompson v. Colorado (10th Cir.)

Hallen v. Union Beach Board of Education (D.New Jersey)

Jeffreys v. State of New Jersey (D.New Jersey)

3. Consent Decrees

Some litigation is resolved at
the time the suit is filed or afterwards by means of a negotiated
consent decree. Consent decrees are monitored and enforced by
the Federal court in which they are entered.

Title III

Perkins v. Valenti Mid-South Management, LLC --
The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee settled
a lawsuit in which it had intervened to enforce the barrier removal
requirements of title III against Valenti Mid-South Management,
LLC, a franchisee operating a chain of 54 Wendy's Restaurants
in Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. Under the
consent decree Valenti agreed to make a wide range of improvements
to each of these restaurants to provide greater accessibility.
The required barrier removal for each restaurant varies but generally
includes providing new curb ramps from parking lots to sidewalks,
creating more clear space at entrances to facilitate the opening
of doors, reconfiguring customer service lines to allow access
to wheelchair users, providing more accessible dining tables,
lowering service and condiment counters, widening restroom doors,
replacing toilets, adding or remounting grab bars, replacing
lavatories, and lowering paper towel dispensers. The order also
requires Valenti to pay damages to the private plaintiff in the
amount of $25,000.

4. Amicus Briefs

The Department files briefs in
selected ADA cases in which it is not a party in order to guide
courts in interpreting the ADA.

Title I

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
-- The Department filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court
arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
mistakenly ruled that the plaintiff was substantially limited
in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, and therefore
was a person with a disability, because of her inability to perform
the tasks involved in a narrow range of assembly line jobs. The
plaintiff assembly line worker alleged that Toyota refused to
reassign her to her former job when her new job exacerbated her
carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis in her hands and arms by
requiring her to grip a block of wood and to keep her hands and
arms around shoulder height repetitively over several hours.
Despite her impairments she was able to perform many other work-related
manual tasks as well as certain manual tasks unrelated to work,
such as brushing her teeth, laundering, and some driving. The
Department's brief argued that to consider the plaintiff to be
disabled because of the inability to perform the manual tasks
associated with only a narrow range of assembly line jobs undermines
the ADA's test for substantial limitation in the major life activity
of working which requires the inability to perform either a class
of jobs o a broad range of jobs in various classes. It also argued
that the Sixth Circuit distorted the test for substantial limitation
in performing manual tasks by limiting it only to tasks performed
in connection with work. The brief asked the Court to send the
case back to the Sixth Circuit for reconsideration under the
correct legal standards.

Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions -- The
Department filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit arguing that the selection process for the television
quiz show, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," is covered
by the ADA. Plaintiffs sued the producers of the show alleging
that the contestant selection process, which is conducted exclusively
over touch-tone telephones, violates the public accommodations
provisions of the ADA by effectively screening out individuals
with hearing and upper-body mobility impairments. The district
court dismissed the suit, holding that title III does not apply
to the telephone selection process because it is not connected
with any physical "place of public accommodation."
On appeal, the Department's brief argues that the television
show is a privilege or service of the television studio which,
as a place of "exhibition or entertainment," is a place
of public accommodation and that the screening process is covered
by title III because it is a required step for participating
in the show.

President Bush Signs Olmstead Executive Order --
President Bush issued an Executive order to carry out his New
Freedom Initiative's commitment to swift implementation of the
Supreme Courts decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The Court
held in Olmstead that unjustified isolation or segregation
of qualified individuals with disabilities through institutionalization
is a form of disability-based discrimination prohibited by title
II of the ADA. States must act to avoid this type of discrimination
unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of the service, program, or activity provided by the State.
The Order, entitled "Community-Based Alternatives for Individuals
with Disabilities," calls upon the Department of Justice
and certain other Federal agencies, in coordination with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to work together to help
States assess their compliance with Olmstead and to provide
technical assistance to assist States in meeting the goals of
title II of the ADA. These same agencies, the Social Security
Administration and the Departments of Justice, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Labor, are directed to evaluate whether
any of their policies, programs, statutes, or regulations should
be revised to improve the availability of community-based services
for qualified people with disabilities. Finally, the Order directs
the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to fully enforce title II of the ADA, including complaints alleging
unjustified institutionalization. Wherever possible the two agencies
are to work cooperatively with the States and to use alternative
dispute resolution to resolve these complaints.

B.
Formal Settlement Agreements

The Department sometimes resolves cases without
filing a lawsuit by means of formal written settlement agreements.

Title I

Mobile, Alabama -- The Department and the
City of Mobile, Alabama, resolved a charge filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission by an individual who applied
for a position with the Mobile police department but was rejected
because of his heart condition. He was subsequently hired by
the Daphne, Alabama, police department. The agreement requires
the Mobile police department to pay the individual $2,500 in
compensatory damages, provide ADA training to its employees who
participate in employment decisions, and give notice to employees
of their ADA rights.

Title II

** New Project Civic Access Agreements --The
Department has signed 10 additional agreements under the Department's
Project Civic Access initiative, a wide-ranging effort to ensure
that cities, towns, and villages comply with the ADA. Project
Civic Access is dedicated to removing barriers to all aspects
of civic life, including courthouses, libraries, polling places,
police stations, and parks. The new agreements cover --

Provide delivery systems and time frames for providing auxiliary
aids, including sign language interpreters and materials in Braille,
large print, or on cassette tapes.

Willowbrook, Illinois -- The Willowbrook
Police Department agreed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids,
including sign language interpreters, when necessary to ensure
effective communication with persons who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Willowbrook also agreed to train its employees on issues
of effective communication in police situations, including arrests.

Fayette County, Ohio -- The Department entered
into a settlement agreement with the sheriff's department of
Fayette County, Ohio, resolving a complaint alleging that the
county failed to respond to a 9-1-1 call from TTY user. The county
agreed to maintain a TTY at each call-taking position in order
to ensure direct, effective 9-1-1 access to TTY users; include
TTY equipment in the county's power failure contingency plans;
establish a working relationship with deaf individuals to assist
in evaluating the 9-1-1 system; check all open line calls to
see if they are coming from a TTY caller and respond appropriately;
and maintain a comprehensive training program for every 9-1-1
call-taker.

Ben Hill County, Georgia -- The Department
reached an agreement with Ben Hill County, Georgia, resolving
a complaint that the county courthouse was not accessible to
people with mobility impairments. The county agreed that within
nine months it will install an accessible ramp, construct accessible
toilet rooms, and install an elevator to the second floor. Until
construction is completed, the county will relocate activities
when necessary t meet the ADA's program accessibility requirements.

Cudahy, Wisconsin -- The Cudahy Police Department
agreed to adopt and implement a policy requiring the provision
of auxiliary aids and services, including sign language interpreters,
when necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Title III

Advocate Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center, Chicago,
Illinois -- The Department signed an agreement with
Advocate Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center resolving a complaint
that the hospital did not provide a deaf patient with a sign
language interpreter or TTY's during her stay at the hospital.
The hospital agreed to establish a comprehensive program to provide
appropriate auxiliary aids and services to patients, their families,
and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing and annual
training to hospital personnel and affiliated physicians. The
hospital will also contribute $15,000 to a disability advocacy
group in the name of the now deceased complainant.

Ramada Inn\Country Kitchen Restaurant, Little Rock,
Arkansas -- A Little Rock restaurant agreed to post
a written policy for customers welcoming individuals and their
service animals. The complainant, who is hard of hearing and
uses a service animal, alleged that the Ramada Inn\Country Kitchen
Restaurant requested to see the dog's identification card and
certification documents in violation of title III. The agreement
also requires the restaurant to post a written policy for its
employees that briefly describes service animals and how they
are used by individuals with disabilities. The policy states
that, in cases of doubt, employees should allow the animal to
enter if, when questioned, the customer says it is a service
animal.

Concorde Career Colleges, Inc., Mission, Kansas
-- The Department entered into a settlement agreement with Concorde
Career Colleges, Inc., headquartered in Mission, Kansas, successfully
resolving a title III complaint involving its admissions policy.
The complaint alleged that officials at Concordes campus in Garden
Grove, California, required a prospective nursing student with
severe scoliosis (lateral curvature of the spine) either to sign
a document acknowledging the demands of the training and releasing
the college from liability or to obtain a doctor's statement
that he was capable of meeting the demands of the program. Nondisabled
students were not subject to this requirement. Under the agreement,
Concorde agreed to refrain from imposing extra admission requirements
on prospective students with disabilities, to ensure that its
admission eligibility criteria are nondiscriminatory, and to
pay the complainant $3,000.

Mississippi Commission for International Cultural
Exchange -- The U. S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Mississippi reached an agreement with the Mississippi Commission
for International Cultural Exchange, which sponsors the Majesty
of Spain Exhibit in Jackson, Mississippi. The Agreement requires
the commission to take numerous steps to improve access to persons
with disabilities, including installing a ramp to the front entrance,
lowering service counter heights, installing signs with Braille
and raised lettering, installing wheelchair seating in the theater,
lowering slopes along interior routes, installing visual fire
alarms and text telephones, modifying restrooms, providing sign
language interpreters, providing alternate formats of exhibits
and information, allowing persons with disabilities to be accompanied
by service animals, designating an accessibility coordinator,
and training staff and volunteers.

C.
Other Settlements

The Department resolves numerous cases without
litigation or a formal settlement agreement. In some instances,
the public accommodation, commercial facility, or State or local
government promptly agrees to take the necessary actions to achieve
compliance. In others, extensive negotiations are required. Following
are some examples of what has been accomplished through informal
settlements.

Title II

A New York town installed accessible entrances, doors, restrooms,
parking spaces, curb cuts providing for an accessible route to
its town hall, and installed appropriate signage throughout the
facility.

A municipal correctional center in Virginia installed accessible
holding cells, toilet stalls, lavatories and showers and issued
a manual including guidelines for ensuring the physical and mental
welfare of incarcerated persons with disabilities.

A Missouri town now offers curb side service to individuals
who are unable to enter the inaccessible city hall and agreed
to move board of aldermen meetings to an accessible location
with 48 hours' notice and to make reasonable efforts to relocate
when notice is less than 48 hours.

A Washington municipality created a designated wheelchair
accessible parking space at its visitor information center.

A Washington county completed a county-wide transition plan.

Title III

A Colorado Springs hotel provided more accessible parking,
obtained hearing aid compatible public phones and one public
text telephone, acquired more assistive technology for guest
rooms, and altered guest rooms to make them accessible.

A Maryland hotel purchased a fully accessible wheelchair van
for use as an airport shuttle.

A commercial facility in Colorado added signage to the front
of the building directing patrons to the accessible entrance.

A Louisiana hotel purchased five communication kits including
TTY's, strobe smoke alarms, vibration alarm clocks, strobe door
beacons, and sonic alert door signals. It also placed a telephone
in the lobby with a sign stating that a TTY is available and
posted two other signs at the front desk informing the public
of the availability of auxiliary aids and devices for guests
who are deaf or hard of hearing.

An Atlanta, Georgia, medical clinic constructed an accessible
ramp to its front entrance.

A private tour operator in Savannah, Georgia, purchased an
accessible trolley and an accessible minibus, made arrangements
to lease accessible over-the-road buses upon demand, and agreed
not to assess surcharges for use of accessible vehicles.

An Ohio health care provider agreed to provide effective communication
by adopting a policy of providing qualified sign language interpreters,
posting signs, and educating its staff about its ADA responsibilities.

A Hawaii shuttle service initially made arrangements with
another transportation company to provide accessible service
to patrons who use wheelchairs and subsequently purchased an
11-passenger van equipped with a wheelchair lift.

II.
Mediation

Under a contract with the Department of Justice,
The Key Bridge Foundation receives referrals of complaints under
titles II and III for mediation by professional mediators who
have been trained in the legal requirements of the ADA. An increasing
number of people with disabilities and disability rights organizations
are specifically requesting the Department to refer their complaints
to mediation. More than 450 professional mediators are available
nationwide to mediate ADA cases. Over 80 percent of the cases
in which mediation has been completed have been successfully
resolved. Following are recent examples of results reached through
mediation --

In California, a couple with mobility impairments complained
that a national chain restaurant refused their request to sit
in chairs at the end of a booth, because their disabilities made
it difficult to enter and exit booth seating. They also complained
that the manager was rude to them. The restaurant agreed to add
accessible, free-standing tables and chairs in addition to booth
seating and disciplined the manager involved in the incident.
The restaurant also wrote a letter of apology to the couple,
offered them a complimentary meal when the new seating had been
installed, and paid them $400.

A person with a mobility impairment complained that a Pennsylvania
hotel offered only one class of accessible rooms, all at the
highest room rate at the hotel, but two classes of inaccessible
rooms. The hotel chain agreed that, in properties where only
one class of accessible rooms was available, the accessible rooms
would be made available at the rate for the lowest class of inaccessible
rooms. The chain communicated this policy to both its owned and
franchised properties.

In Utah, an individual whose child has a mobility impairment
complained that a restaurant did not have an accessible entrance.
The parties initially agreed that the restaurant would create
a new accessible entrance at the side of the building, but the
town refused to issue building permits because it would have
encroached on the narrow drive-through service lane. The parties
then agreed that the restaurant would obtain a portable ramp,
install a doorbell with appropriate signage at the entrance,
and train its staff on where the ramp would be stored as well
as how to use the ramp.

In Florida, a wheelchair user complained that an insurance
agency did not have an accessible entrance. The business immediately
constructed an accessible ramp at its entrance.

A deaf individual complained that a Minnesota doctor's office
failed to provide interpreter services for an appointment. The
doctor agreed to provide interpreters when necessary and added
telephone numbers of interpreters to the office telephone roster.
The doctor also disciplined the employee who refused to provide
the interpreter and apologized to the complainant.

In Nevada, a wheelchair user complained that a major fast
food restaurant was inaccessible because the entry doors were
too heavy to open independently, that the queues that customers
must pass through to place their orders at the service counter
were inaccessible, and that carrying food to tables was difficult
for some people with disabilities. The franchise owner agreed
to reduce the opening pressure on the exterior doors, to install
a buzzer and train employees to assist individuals to enter the
restaurant, if needed. The owner also reconfigured the customer
queue so that wheelchair users can order at the counter, and
agreed to have employees deliver food and beverages to tables
when requested, and to provide ongoing training to employees
on ADA requirements.

A wheelchair user complained that a Virginia shopping center
did not have adequate signage for accessible parking. Because
the signs were often knocked down by snow plows, the owner of
the lot designed and installed a reinforced pillar system to
post the signs and apologized to the complainant.

In Colorado, an individual who is legally blind complained
that a credit card company failed to provide effective communication.
Although the company routinely provides large print monthly statements,
the print was too small for the complainant to read. The company
agreed to maintain an accessible website and worked with the
complainant so he can now access the website to enlarge and print
his monthly statements in a format usable by him. The company
reaffirmed its commitment to continue to provide statements in
large print and Braille and to provide telephone customer assistance
24 hours a day, seven days per week. The company also paid the
complainant's attorney's fees.

In Kentucky, a person who is deaf complained that a medical
center failed to provide interpreter services when requested
in advance. The medical center agreed to provide interpreter
services in the future.

A wheelchair user complained that a North Carolina strip
mall had barriers that prevented him from entering the shops.
The respondent installed curb cuts, a ramp, and appropriate signage.

In California, a wheelchair user serving as a juror complained
that the courthouse was inaccessible because the restrooms were
not accessible, there was no accessible path of travel from the
jury room to the courtroom, and the jury box was inaccessible.
During mediation, it was learned the courthouse did have accessible
courtrooms, jury rooms, and restrooms. The court informed all
judges of the availability of accessible courtrooms, jury deliberation
rooms, and bathrooms and implemented a new policy to move trials
or other proceedings to one of the accessible courtrooms when
needed to accommodate jurors with disabilities.

In Nevada, a person who is hard of hearing complained that
a casino and adjacent hotel were inaccessible to individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing. The complainant alleged that
the casino did not provide assistive listening systems in its
meeting rooms and that the hotel did not provide amplified telephones
in guest rooms. The respondent installed an assistive listening
system in its meeting rooms and amplified telephones in guest
rooms designated as accessible for individuals with hearing impairments.
The respondent also obtained TTY's and visual alarms and purchased
new registration cards stating that accommodations for guests
with disabilities are available.

A wheelchair user who has paralysis on one side of his face
complained that an employee of a Maryland restaurant insulted
him, refused to serve him, and told him to leave because of his
appearance. The respondents modified their policies to include
training on the ADA and appropriate conduct towards customers.
They further agreed to welcome the complainant at the restaurant
and provided him with a complimentary meal.

In California, a wheelchair user complained that a restaurant
did not have accessible parking. The respondent restriped the
parking lot to provide accessible parking.

III.
Technical Assistance

The
ADA requires the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance
to entities and individuals with rights and responsibilities
under the law. The Department encourages voluntary compliance
by providing education and technical assistance to businesses,
governments, and members of the general public through a variety
of means. Our activities include providing direct technical assistance
and guidance to the public through our ADA Information Line,
ADA Web Page, and Fax on Demand, developing and disseminating
technical assistance materials, undertaking outreach initiatives,
and coordinating ADA technical assistance governmentwide.

ADA
Web Site

The ADA Web Site is operated by the Department on the Internet's
World Wide Web (www.ada.gov).
The home page provides information about --

the toll-free ADA Information Line,

the Department's ADA enforcement activities,

the ADA technical assistance program,

the ADA mediation program,

proposed changes in ADA regulations and requirements, and

certification of State and local building codes.

The home page also provides direct access to --

ADA regulations and technical assistance materials (which
may be viewed online or downloaded for later use),

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ADA materials, and

Links to the Department's press releases and Internet home
pages of other Federal agencies that contain ADA information.

ADA Information Line

The Department of Justice operates a toll-free ADA Information
Line to provide information and free publications to the public
about the requirements of the ADA. Automated service, which allows
callers to order publications for delivery by mail or fax, is
available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ADA specialists
are available to answer specific questions on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and on
Thursday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Spanish
language service is also available.

To obtain general ADA information, get answers to technical
questions, order free ADA materials, or ask about filing a complaint,
please call:

800-514-0301 (voice)
800-514-0383 (TTY)

** Department Issues Joint ADA "Ticket to Work"
Guide -- The Department released a new technical assistance
document entitled "A Guide for People with Disabilities
Seeking Employment." This new guide, published jointly with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Social Security
Administration, explains the ADA employment rights of people
who are receiving Social Security disability benefits, but who
wish to become employed through the Social Security Administration's
new Ticket to Work program. The guide will be distributed nationwide
through the Social Security Administration's regional centers
and is available through the ADA Information Line and the ADA
Home Page.

ADA Fax On Demand

The ADA Information Line Fax Delivery Service allows the public
to obtain free ADA information by fax 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. By calling the number above and following the directions,
callers can select from among 32 different ADA technical assistance
publications and receive the information, usually within minutes,
directly on their fax machines or computer fax/modems. A list
of available documents and their code numbers may also be ordered
through the ADA Information Line.

Publications and Documents

Copies of the Department's ADA regulations and publications,
including the Technical Assistance Manuals for titles II and
III, can be obtained by calling the ADA Information Line, visiting
the ADA Home Page, or writing to the address listed below. All
materials are available in standard print as well as large print,
Braille, audiotape, or computer disk for persons with disabilities.

Currently, the FOI/PA Branch maintains approximately 10,000
pages of ADA material. The records are available at a cost of
$0.10 per page (first 100 pages free). Please make your requests
as specific as possible in order to minimize your costs.

The FOI/PA Branch also provides access to ADA materials on
the World Wide Web at www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/records.htm. A link
to search or visit this website is provided from the ADA Home
Page.

** President's New Freedom Initiative Promotes ADA
Tax Credit - In a quarterly newsletter from the Internal
Revenue Service to over six million businesses, President Bush,
under his New Freedom Initiative, urged small businesses to take
advantage of the Disabled Access Credit, a tax incentive program
created in 1990 to help them comply with the ADA. The ADA Tax
Incentive Packet is available from the Department of Justice
through the ADA Information Line and the ADA Home Page.

IV.
Other Sources of ADA Information

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers
technical assistance to the public concerning the employment
provisions of title I of the ADA.

The Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers
are funded by the U.S. Department of Education through the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) in
ten regions of the country to provide resources and technical
assistance on the ADA.

ADA technical assistance
800-949-4232 (voice & TTY)

www.adata.org

Project ACTION is funded by the U.S. Department of
Transportation to provide ADA information and publications on
making transportation accessible.

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a free telephone
consulting service funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. It
provides information and advice to employers and people with
disabilities on reasonable accommodation in the workplace.

Information on workplace accommodation
800-526-7234 (voice & TTY)

www.jan.wvu.edu

V.
How to File Complaints

Title I

Complaints about violations of title
I (employment) by units of State and local government or by private
employers should be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or 800-669-6820 (TTY) to
reach the field office in your area.

Titles II and III

Complaints about violations of title
II by units of State and local government or violations of title
III by public accommodations and commercial facilities should
be filed with --